DAITARY NAYAK Vs. SRIKANTA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision No. 279 of 1991 as listed for final disposal. Mr. M. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in C. R. No. 304 of 1991 appeared in the court and stated that he had preferred the C. R. No. 304 of 1991 against the same impugned order and if the both cases are not heard together, then the right of his client may be affected. Mr. B. H. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in C. R. 279 of 1991 has no objection. Mr. S. K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing in both the cases has no objection. On consent of both the parties, both the civil revisions are heard together.

(2.) Earlier one title suit bearing No. 17 of 1981 was filed in the court of the Munsif, Keonjhar where the present petitioner in C. R. 279 of 1991 was defendant No. 2. The said suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by the present opposite party No. 2 in C. R. No. 279 of 1991. The suit was decreed in favour of the present opposite party No. 1 the plaintiff in the said suit against which civil revision No. 721 of 1982 was preferred in this court and this court by the order dated 3-8-87 had dismissed the civil revision though observed that the trial court was not right in coming to its conclusion in regard to the property in Schedule A but nevertheless declined to interfere with the order invoking its jurisdiction under Section 151, C. P. C. The law is well settled that restoration of possession in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is subject to a regular title suit, and the person who has the real title or even the better title cannot therefore be prejudiced in any way by a decree in such a suit. It will always be open to him to establish his title in a regular suit and to recover back the possession. The scope of such a suit is limited. Hence there is provision for the loosing party to claim declaration of his title and get recovery of possession.

(3.) Defendant No. 2 and other defendants of Title Suit No. 17 of 1981 filed two suits, one by defendant No. 2 in T. S. No. 17 of 1981 and the present pro forma opposite parties 2 and 3 bearing Title Suit No. 1 of 1989 and the other one by another brother of this defendant No. 2 who was made a defendant in Title Suit No. 17 of 1981 bearing Title Suit No. 78 of 1987 claiming his title to the same property as in Title Suit No. 1 of 1989. Both these suits were heard analogously and dismissed. Against that order, the present petitioner-plaintiff No. 1 in Title Suit No. 1 of 1989 had preferred a. Title Appeal No. 3 of 1991 in the court of the District Judge, Keonjhar whereas the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 78 of 1987 filed Title Appeal No. 2 of 1991 in the same court against the same impugned judgment and decree.